Would a new PS3 version with no HDD, no WiFi, no Card Readers, cheap noisy external power supply, cheap big loud fans, and a hell of a lot less heat pipes. No multi-media ability, and a in-house optical drive for 350$?

It would be a 100% gameing machine. It would only be able to connect to the internet for online gameing, as the internal memory would be too low to download patches/demos. You would have to buy the external HDD for 100$ for that.

Would this be more to your likeing?

EDIT: no HDMI, and a square flat-black case, with a tray fed optical drive.
EDIT2: And toggle switches to turn it on/off, and open the optical drive.

350............No

PS3 any version... is a Crap... I dont pay 2 cents.

Kwaad this wanting to make an analogy of this PS3 with Wii… Poor Little Sony fanboy… Suffering for the failure of the PS3.

 exactly what I wanted to see.

you created this thread just so people could bash the ps3 some more?? dont understand that

I Write again...
"Kwaad this wanting to make an analogy of this PS3 with Wii… Poor Little Sony fanboy… Suffering for the failure of the PS3."

URNotE - Actually I wanted to see the Wii guys come in here, and say they would never buy one for any reason. The point of this was. They always say the BluRay drive is a waste of money and should not have been in it. They also say it is too expensive. My point is, a whole LOT of people on this forum have not had a PlayStation. Never played a Sony Game. Lived very sheltered lives, and have never played games outside nintendo.

I write too...
"iandrade hates sony becuase sony makes great products, but he also thinks nintendo is his god, and he worships his nintendo wii every night."

Ok in terms of being serious. I posted this more as a joke to say. Would people buy the PS3 if it had it's major features ripped out for 350$. Obviously you would never buy a sony product, so you are biased, and in all honesty, not welcome in this thread.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the failure of the PS3 is tortureing me. It's driving me crazy. Oh yeah. F*K this s*t. I'm gonna go play it. I'll check this later.

EDIT2: I dont want a troll fest. I'm saying this now. I just wanna know what features people more or less would be willing to part with on the PS3, leaving it's main featureset intact. Cell, RSX, and BluRay. (dosent have to play movies tho). 

hahahahahahahahahhaha..... That you it wanted to make an analogy with Wii…. Poor boy....

PS3 = Same controller 12 years... USD 599,00... Same games in 12 years... PS Home = Secund Life... BYE BYE Sony!!!

No, I think he meant he wanted to see someone make a baseless, stupid PS3 bashing comment. =P

By the way, don't act like A LOT of people have not played a game outside of Nintendo. I'm 26. I grew up playing Atari with my grandparents, and have owned a lot of Nintendo systems in the early cycle simply because that's what the family bought. Once I got some money of my own, I picked up PS1 and PS2, and even got into PC gaming when I built my own rig to play Quake 2.

As far as a PS3 for 350? Had they originally planned for things to be not all Blue-Ray, then sure, I'd probably take one over a 360, but the issue would be would I miss out on games because of it? Will not having the HD and BR by default make me miss out on things I'd of bought a PS3 for, or will everything sit on multiple DVDs? Regardless, 350 makes it a much better competitor against the 360 at this point, if it were possible to trim the system down to that point and still maintain an edge up on the 360.

And yeah, don't turn this into a flame fest thread, it's merely an estimate to see if price is the real reason people won't buy a PS3. I'm all for letting them cook a little under the grill for being arrogant assholes before their release, but I'm not wanting them out of the game, that only stifles competition. I just want it to ache enough that they learn to be more humble next time around. Humility is a good thing to learn. 

 Edit- Or are you talking about some sort of alternate BR that'd only read games?